CPC 9.25Magnificent 50MM SSAGCelestron SkyMaster 15X70
Gary Honis Modded Canon 1100D (T3)Nikon D800
NSN Channel: BigAppleSkies
CPC 1100 with HD Pro Wedge with ETX-70 Finder Celestar C8, C80ED and PST Istar 150 Anistigmatic R30 on CGEM Jason 313 from 1975! Mallincam Extreme & Mallincam SSIc & Mallincam Micro DSI Pro, Orion SSAG, GPUSB, Nautilus Filterwheel JMI, Celestron and Orion MotoFocus, FCUSB1&2 Hyperion 5,13, ES 18, 30, OR 18, 25 TV 2.5x Powermate, WO Binoviewer with pairs: TV 7 Naglers, WO 20 and RKE 28
My PixInsight Tutorial
Pointer to Other Useful Threads of Mine
Quote:I have both mounts and have used both with 6", 8" and 11" SCT. My experience tells me that the 30 pound weight rating on the AVX is a conservative rating and the 35 pound rating on the CG5 is optimistic.
Ranger Tim - McCammon, Idaho The original AP'er on a budget "I'm not a professional astronomer, but I play one on TV."
Paul B. Jones http://www.astrobin.com/users/bunyon/
Quote:I sold a CG5 to get the AVX for imaging with a C8 and it helped a lot. With that said, the CG5 did work and with a 80mm refractor was more than adequate. The capacity of the AVX is higher than the CG5 - I don't care what the published specs say. But it's close and your scope and guider are well within limits. The only downside of the Cg5 is that, on a lot of thme (and mine), there was a ton of backlash in Declination which inhibited guiding in Dec. But with good polar alignment and guiding in RA (essentially PEC), I got up to 10 minute exposures at 400mm.If money were no object, I'd go with the AVX for sure. But you say money is an object, and it most certainly is. From what you've said, go with the CG5 on sale and enjoy it.-Oklahoma State, class of 1993
Quote:I plan on using the AT65 with a guider. That's it. At this point in my life, hard core AP will have to wait a while. Ill stick with the CPC 925 for viewing. No more upgrades for at least a decade after I get the mount. No new scopes for that same time.
Quote:If you want to dip your feet in, a CG5 gives you everything you could ever want as long as you don't try to stack a 12" SCT on it. Frankly, the other mounts close really offer very little reason to get them. The late model cg5 is a beast. There is nothing on an AVX that isn't on a CG5.
Quote:integer gearboxes and drive software that avoids the cogging issue
Celestron CG-5⁴, CGEM², C6-N, C6, C8, Nexstar 8SE, 6SE, ONYX 80 EDF, Orion ST 80 A Vixen R130SF w/Porta II mount William Optics ZS110 ED APO, FLT 132 Triplet APO, SV70 ED SV115T20 Wicháhpih'a
Quote:I know you have both mounts, but why do you say the AVX is sturdier than the CG-5? I know the AVX weighs about 5 lbs more, but they both use the same tripod (Similar).
Quote:There are stories out there that the CG-5 also suffers cogging.But see - the thing is cogging looks exactly like stiction. And, thanks to the lack of ball bearings on the DEC axis, the CG-5 generally has a good dosage of stiction. Which would mask the cogging...But I digress.If I had only one mount for 10 years, and the choice was the CG-5 and AVX, the latter would be a no-brainer.
Quote:The Celestron engineers are fairly bright and, believe it or not, thought about this. They understand more about what is going on with their mount than the majority of the denizens of CN.They designed a solution to this which does not require fitting ball bearings instead of using a plain bearing. It doesn't require you to spend hundreds of dollars on additional bearings, or pay for hypertuning. None the less it solves the dec guiding problems that people were having with the CG5.Chris